Corona

[Kinbaku]

just think, a smartphone app would have stopped covid in its tracks...

Here we have an app on the smartphone that indicates whether you have been in the vicinity of someone with Covid-19.
However, it does not work well because it is based on the GPS. So if the 2 people were in 2 different shops but separated from the common wall, the GPS considered that you were close enough to each other to get infected.

[Gregovic]

just think, a smartphone app would have stopped covid in its tracks...

Here we have an app on the smartphone that indicates whether you have been in the vicinity of someone with Covid-19.
However, it does not work well because it is based on the GPS. So if the 2 people were in 2 different shops but separated from the common wall, the GPS considered that you were close enough to each other to get infected.

One of many reasons I don't bother using those apps. They are completely and utterly pointless.

[Kinbaku]

just think, a smartphone app would have stopped covid in its tracks...

Here we have an app on the smartphone that indicates whether you have been in the vicinity of someone with Covid-19.
However, it does not work well because it is based on the GPS. So if the 2 people were in 2 different shops but separated from the common wall, the GPS considered that you were close enough to each other to get infected.

One of many reasons I don't bother using those apps. They are completely and utterly pointless.

Quite right. I don't use them either because you always have to have your GPS on. I have the GPS and my WiFi off and only turn them on when they are really needed.

[bounddosster]

Now, here's a piece of genius here in the UK

(a) The government is encouraging everyone to be vaccinated, but insists that those who have been, should behave as though they still have not been vaccinated, as they may still be able to transmit it.

(b) The government are considering covid passports - you qualify if you have caught covid, have a course of vaccination or take a series of (negative) tests. Then you can move completely freely, without restriction.

Conclusion : the covid passport prevents transmission of the virus.

just think, a smartphone app would have stopped covid in its tracks...

I understand the "passport" is going to be on your smartphone. The UK government is always assuming everyone has a smartphone. I can think of seventeen people I know who don't have a smartphone. One being me, had one once for about six months then got rid. Now I have a simple phone that is a phone with a few extras and not a load of extras (I'd never use) with a phone.

[lj]

indeed the "passport" is proposed as a smartphone app, and yes, smartphones are not owned by everyone, in fact many people would be unable to use one even if offered free. Just as we see almost all interaction expected to be via the internet (eg HMRC requiring all company tax forms to be web-based) There is a serious dichotomy developing, between those who use web technology and those who don't, risking cutting off those who don't from most aspects of modern life.

[bounddosster]

indeed the "passport" is proposed as a smartphone app, and yes, smartphones are not owned by everyone, in fact many people would be unable to use one even if offered free. Just as we see almost all interaction expected to be via the internet (eg HMRC requiring all company tax forms to be web-based) There is a serious dichotomy developing, between those who use web technology and those who don't, risking cutting off those who don't from most aspects of modern life.

So true, there is also a reluctance for some people even if they do have the tech to trust it there were far more requests for paper versions of the recent census than was expected. I did mine on paper, no way am I going to type all that detail into one site.

[OrgasmAlley]

At this point, a vast pile of studies have been done to estimate the infection fatality rate of the COVID (distinct from the case fatality rate, which skews heavily to more sick participants and totally ignores the majority of asymptomatic cases). The overall conclusion has not changed since an Ioannidis meta-study was published by the WHO in October.

The death rate of COVID is approximate 0.23%... a bit over 2 people per 1,000. The actual death rate varies by location, based on behavioral and health system characteristics. The disease is quite a lot more deadly for those over 70 years of age, and more deadly for men than women. For those under 40, it is notably less deadly than the seasonal flu (by our best guess about the flu's IFR).

Should we not look at our own reaction to this disease and ask, would you do this again for another disease that kills 2-3 people per 1,000 that contract it? Instead, we continue to encourage irrational reactions and maintain fear.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

Total Cases 136,265,095 , Global Deaths 2,940,055
I am slightly confused about something. Vaccinated people are permitted to show their proof of vaccination in lieu of a negative test result. They are now told they can meet with others in small gatherings. But they are encouraged or required to wear a mask in large or mixed settings. Am I the only one who sees that this is the reason for an infection surge? Vaccinated people can be asymptomatic carriers. I feel like I missed something here.
At a certain point, maybe after everyone is offered the vaccine, is that when we drop masking mandates? In so many words, everyone concerned about infection has taken the steps to prevent it, and everyone else properly assumes the risk?

[lj]

Vaccinated people can be asymptomatic carriers.

a lot of emphasis needs to be placed on "can"

my understanding is that vaccinated people don't carry the virus expect perhaps for a brief period following contact with a heavily infected person spreading a very high virus load, as literally "excess baggage", so "can" is a typical scientist's answer to any question requiring a binary-choice answer.

I am more inclined to think the "wear a mask" advice is to maintain the general principle of everyone wearing a mask, saving the divisive issues of "some who do and some who don't". The same applies to "small gatherings".

No official or politician wants to be the one who says "get back to normal", and no scientist will give an unqualified "it's ok", just in case there is a resurgence of the virus.

Here in the UK we were told that there will be no more lockdowns, yet the government re-enacted the legal framework that allows it for another six months...

[OrgasmAlley]

"Vaccinated people can be asymptomatic carriers."

To put this statement in context, it is also true that a at a target range, a blind person spun randomly around "can" hit a target the size of a dinner plate at 100 yards.

I posted this previously, but: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... mm7013e3_w

So let's put some numbers to this. The study term was 13 weeks, and the participants were front line workers. Of the 2,479 people in the study who were fully vaccinated, just three contracted the COVID, which is in line with the vaccine's efficacy. In comparison, the CDC also tracked 994 people who were not vaccinated, and 161 contracted COVID-19. No one in the study died.

So first, a vaccinated person could be a carrier... they do become infected, at a rate 1/134th that of the unvaccinated. The evidence we have strongly suggests the asymptomatic cases -- people with a full on infection but without symptoms -- do not spread COVID. The recent CDC directive lowered the threat level of fomites (exhaled droplets on surfaces and such) to the equivalent of non-existent.

No serious person being honest has a legitimate way to support the theory that fully vaccinated people should go around in face diapers. The only possible purpose of this guidance is population control.... specifically, without the fear level remaining high, extreme government actions are less popular. It's really that simple. And frankly, it goes against the public good. Without the lure of "you can take your mask off" a significantly lower number of people will get vaccinated. This policy makes the vaccine seem less effective than it truly is... and less desirable.

[OrgasmAlley]

In the continuing effort to keep up the fear of COVID, the CDC has recklessly issued a "pause" on distribution of the JnJ vaccine. Why? Because of the 7,000,000 doses administered, 6 women between 18 and 48 experienced some unusual blood clotting. One has died. To put this in context:

You are more than twice as likely to be struck by lightning in the US... 1 in 500,000 in any given year vs. 1 in 1.16 million. 10% of those struck by lightning die.

The chance on this adverse effect is almost exactly the chance one experiences the potentially fatal side effect of anaphylaxis following the common combination of childhood vaccines for measures-mumps-rubella, hepB, diptheria-tetanus-pertussis. A study covering 7,664,049 such vaccinations found 5 cases of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. None of the cases in this study died, although there were 5 known deaths between 1997 and 2013. We haven't ever paused these vaccinations.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

Might have something to do with that, and the combination of accidentally mixing up ingredients with the AstraZeneca vaccine at an Emergent plant in Baltimore last month. They claimed that none of the contaminated medication left the factory. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... -emergent/

[OrgasmAlley]

A very small increase in blood clotting goes back to clinical trials of the JnJ vaccine. You might remember that the JnJ trial was paused when a participant became "ill". That was transverse sinus thrombosis, a rare blood clot that 3-4 people per million experience annually.... the same rare clotting under consideration in the pause. Other blood clotting was noted in the trial as well... overall, the vaccine group had 15 incidents vs. 10 in the equally sized control group (didn't get the vaccine), a difference that isn't probative but a contribution from the vaccine can't be ruled out.

We can note that 7 million people experiencing this clotting at a rate of 3.5 per million annually leads to an expected incidence of 2 cases per month... which is not very far from 6 shown in evidence. It is pretty logical to say that the JnJ vaccine (and AZ, below) seems to be associated with a minor increase in incidence.

This similar to AstraZeneca concerns in Europe, and both are modified adenovirus vaccines (distinct from the two mRNA vaccines). That does heighten the concern, but really. These vaccines have EASILY prevent 10,000 deaths just since they started distribution. I am not sure under what condition you would hold something saving thousands of lives over 6 instances of a problem. This is not a standard we have ever applied to any other thing, ever.

[JIMDINI]

Given that these clotting events are significantly lower than those caused by the contraceptive pill, but these pills are sold over the counter without any health checks. I think this is just scare mongering by the competing Pharma industries.
All medicines/vaccines have side effects that can cause serious events in small sections of the population. Awareness is the key in the UK NHS providers are diligent in checking if you are likely to be susceptible and either monitor or offer alternatives.
All life is arisk and there is such a thing as being overcautious.

[lj]

I don't agree with the scare-mongering by Big Pharma idea, but we are all entitled to an opinion.

However, I do worry about our Prime Minister stating that vaccines have not contributed to Covid suppression and reduced hospitalisations and consequent deaths, giving all the credit to lock-downs. This is not borne out by "the science" he was so fond of using to justify everything. My conspiracy theory is this is to justify his government's actions over the past year, and also to soften up the population to continue to acquiesce to future lockdowns, which he stated would NOT happen again.

But it seems most countries' governments are all incapable of understanding "the science", or more accurately, how scientists carry out research, formulate hypotheses, test them, discard or modify them, until they have a better, but never absolute, understanding. Unfortunately politicians select the safest route (safest for their reputations in the face of media assault) and in this case, take the worst-case scenario and move to counter that, without regard for any other factors or consequences.